Too much austerity: the public sector begins hiring again after "over-firing"

The loss of 370,000 public sector jobs since 2010 has left some departments struggling to provide basic services.

The next time that you hear someone on the right claim that there has been "no austerity" since George Osborne became Chancellor, point them to the figures for public sector employment. They show that 370,000 jobs have been cut since the second quarter of 2010, with the public sector now at its smallest size since 2003. By 2018, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility, 1.1m will have gone. In the words of the usually restrained Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, we are witnessing "a tectonic shift in the underlying structure of the labour market".

So great have the cuts been that Whitehall is now recruiting again, with public sector job creation expected to outpace that in the private sector in the next three months. The recruitment firm Manpower reports: 

We've seen the number of people leaving public sector employment slow as they reach the minimum they need to provide services, while some have gone too far and seen they need to begin re-hiring.

For the Tories, cutting public sector jobs is a matter of politics as well as deficit reduction. While in opposition, the party frequently complained that Labour's "client state" made the election of a Conservative government impossible, so, in office, they have reduced it.  As one senior Tory told the Spectator’s James Forsyth, "You create a bigger private sector, you create more Tories."

The polls certainly suggest as much. Polling by Ipsos MORI shows that while Labour has a 21-point lead among public sector workers (49-28), it leads by just four among their private sector counterparts (38-34). Logic says that if you reduce the former group and expand the latter (the OBR forecasts an extra 2.4 million private sector workers by 2018), the Tories will benefit. A smaller public sector means fewer people with a vested interest in high levels of spending. But as the Tories have found, there are limits to how far the state can be rolled back. 

Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne leaves 11 Downing Street in London. Photograph: Getty Images.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Matt Cardy/Getty Images
Show Hide image

What did Jeremy Corbyn really say about Bin Laden?

He's been critiqued for calling Bin Laden's death a "tragedy". But what did Jeremy Corbyn really say?

Jeremy Corbyn is under fire for describing Bin Laden’s death as a “tragedy” in the Sun, but what did the Labour leadership frontrunner really say?

In remarks made to Press TV, the state-backed Iranian broadcaster, the Islington North MP said:

“This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy. The World Trade Center was a tragedy, the attack on Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy. Tens of thousands of people have died.”

He also added that it was his preference that Osama Bin Laden be put on trial, a view shared by, among other people, Barack Obama and Boris Johnson.

Although Andy Burnham, one of Corbyn’s rivals for the leadership, will later today claim that “there is everything to play for” in the contest, with “tens of thousands still to vote”, the row is unlikely to harm Corbyn’s chances of becoming Labour leader. 

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.